As I recall, Levinas' intellectual antecedent wasn't Adam Smith the Political Economist, rather it was Georg Simmel the Sociologist who linked the Gift into structures of social exchange involving subtle patterns of culture and psychology rather than the monotonic structures of (as for example Chicago School interpreted) "trade".
To short circuit the likely response a bit--certainly all "trade" is interpretable as "exchange" but most for example, Anthropology research, is built on the premise that not all "exchange" is simply "trade". MG -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: February 3, 2002 10:51 AM To: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; G. Stewart Subject: Gifting (was Re: Fw: conference) Hi Brad, You cited the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas: <<<< . . . the ultimate reason for production is not the satisfaction of needs, but to have something to offer as a gift to welcome the other (as opposed to being reduced to receiving the other "empty handed"). >>>> and then you wrote: (BMcC) <<<< Obviously this is not "economics", but it may help us *situate* economics in the encompassing world of our factual and potential life. >>>> But Levinas was absolutely dead right! Gifting *is* economics. It's otherwise called trade. Keith __________________________________________________________ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
